Bartko v. United States Department of Justice
102 F. Supp. 3d 342
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Bartko, a federal inmate convicted of securities fraud, filed pro se FOIA requests seeking records relating to his prosecution to support claims of prosecutorial misconduct and to aid a habeas petition.
- On July 26, 2014, Bartko requested records and a fee waiver from DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR); OPR identified ~620 pages (later treated as 620) mostly relating to EOUSA and referred them to EOUSA on September 10, 2014.
- Bartko filed suit after not receiving the records; EOUSA eventually released 101 pages (89 in full, 12 partially redacted) on February 9, 2015 and assessed fees for the remaining 519 pages ($51.90), prompting an administrative appeal by Bartko to OIP.
- Bartko moved for partial summary judgment arguing EOUSA failed to timely process the referral and that he was entitled to a fee waiver; EOUSA cross-moved to dismiss/for partial summary judgment, defending its redactions and fee assessment.
- The Court found EOUSA’s Exemption 5 redactions to the 12 partially redacted pages proper and granted summary judgment on those 101 pages, but rejected Bartko’s claim for a public-interest fee waiver for the remaining pages.
- The Court concluded Bartko constructively exhausted administrative remedies (due to agency delay) but held that constructive exhaustion does not relieve him of paying fees; it denied his bad-faith allegations and dismissed remaining claims for failure to pay required fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / constructive exhaustion | Bartko argued EOUSA failed to timely process OPR referral, permitting immediate judicial review | EOUSA argued administrative remedies not exhausted and delay was not unreasonable | Court found constructive exhaustion (agency delay) so judicial review permitted for fee dispute |
| Validity of redactions (Exemption 5) | Bartko generally challenged withholdings but conceded many redactions were privileged communications | EOUSA asserted Exemption 5 properly applied to attorney-client/privileged material | Court granted EOUSA partial summary judgment; redactions to 12 pages upheld |
| Fee waiver (public-interest) | Bartko claimed disclosure would serve public interest by exposing prosecutorial misconduct and vindicating broader public concerns | EOUSA argued records sought primarily to benefit Bartko (to aid habeas) and thus do not significantly contribute to public understanding | Court held Bartko failed to satisfy public-interest factors and denied fee waiver |
| Agency bad faith | Bartko alleged delay, confusing communications, withholding public filings, and burdensome fee installment plan showed bad faith | EOUSA explained delays by administrative error/misplacement and adherence to fee regulations; denial of bad faith | Court found no evidence of bad faith; delays and administrative mistakes insufficient to show bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- United States Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (FOIA burden and de novo review)
- Oglesby v. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (constructive exhaustion doctrine in FOIA)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309 (fee waiver standards; liberally construed for noncommercial requesters)
- Marino v. Dep’t of Justice, 993 F. Supp. 2d 14 (records sought to challenge conviction weigh against fee waiver)